Why Do We Spend $34 Billion in Alternative Medicine?

[Eos of the Eons]

This comment insinuates that it does not have side effects. As I suspected, you've turned tail.

You're insinuating that the chit you push does not have side effects??? I got news for ya. The stuff real doctors prescribe have been tested, TESTED. We know the side effects. The junk you push is untested and unregulated, and people have to get harmed before anyone looks into why:


http://jacksonville.injuryboard.com...ohns-wort-and-cataracts-.aspx?googleid=275706

St. John's wort, decreases the effectiveness of birth control pills, and now finding out:

he herb is, in other words, phototoxic to the ocular lens.

Yeah, cataracts are an awesome natural side effect!

Aspirin in its natural form will burn a hole in your stomach.
http://www.medicinenet.com/willow_bark_salix_alba_and_other_salix_sp-o/article.htm

Other warnings of adulterated products, because unlike drugs, don't have to show they are free of anything dangerous before being sold:

http://www.medicinenet.com/willow_bark_salix_alba_and_other_salix_sp-o/article.htm

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Regulation/Health-Canada-issues-second-Ayurvedic-warning

You've been lied to about how "safe" "natural products" are. Sorry, but they contain chemicals, as all things on this planet do. And to give natural products that oomph they need to sell, manufacturers will throw stuff in and not warn consumers about it just to make a fast easy buck.

 

[WitchyWoman]

No one has lied to me. I certainly would not take such products without first going to a qualified herbalist. Just like I would never take a synthetic drug without consulting a Doctor.

Sorry to burst your bubble, the synthetic form of aspirin can do the same.

 

[paximperium]

No one has lied to me. I certainly would not take such products without first going to a qualified herbalist. Just like I would never take a synthetic drug without consulting a Doctor.

What is a "qualified" Herbalist? Were they they ones who researched the side-effects of any of the stuff they peddle? What training do they have about the biochemical and physiological effects their stuff is doing?

Sorry to burst your bubble, the synthetic form of aspirin can do the same.

Yes. This is a known side-effect based on a multitude of research papers. We even know the exact doses involved with gastric problems. So how much "natural" aspirin must you take before you start seeing effects?

So natural does not equal safe. So your claim about the safety about natural harbs being safe is falsified.

 

[Mojo]

Indeed it was, although aspirin does not allow the patient the full experience of natural healthy side-effects

This comment insinuates that it does not have side effects. As I suspected, you've turned tail.

No, it doesn't. It insinuates that it causes less side-effects than willow bark.

By the way, you have already conceded that I hadn't claimed that it has no side-effects, when in response to my question "did I say it has no side-effects" you posted this:

Mojo, no you didn't, hence my question.

Who is "turning tail"?

 

[WitchyWoman]

So natural does not equal safe. So your claim about the safety about natural harbs being safe is falsified.

Wow. Where are you getting these CLAIMS? I never said anything that conferred that something is natural therefore it is safe. That is delusional.

 

[WitchyWoman]

Mojo, your question was answered. I already stated you never came out and said that but that it was insinuated. I do believe I followed up with something along the lines of having the balls to say what one believes. You can mince words all you want, my initial thought of you was correct. You'll never commit to one line of thought so you can come back to argue it. How brave of you.

 

[paximperium]

Wow. Where are you getting these CLAIMS? I never said anything that conferred that something is natural therefore it is safe. That is delusional.

Okay, I'll grant you that.
So "natural" stuff is not safe and not effective...so what was your point again?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo, your question was answered.

It was indeed, and your answer conceded that I hadn't. Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can see that "aspirin does not allow the patient the full experience of natural healthy side-effects" is not a claim that aspirin has no side effects, just as anyone with a basic knowledge of colloquial English can see that a question accompanied by "Really?" and "LOL" is not intended seriously.

 

[WitchyWoman]

So "natural" stuff is not safe and not effective...so what was your point again?

I also never said that, I see you're as good at word play as Mojo is. So what was your point again?

 

[paximperium]

I also never said that, I see you're as good at word play as Mojo is. So what was your point again?

So you HAVE NO point? That clears things up.

 

[paximperium]

I also never said that, I see you're as good at word play as Mojo is. So what was your point again?

A bit of advice. You don't seem to understand the whole concept of Debating and Rhetoric at all. What you call "word play" IS debate. It is holding a claimant to their own words. It is pushing an idea with the use of words.

If you want to state something, do so clearly and stop with statements that can only be misconstrued as nothing more than insinuations. If you want to seem honest, answer the relevant questions instead of skipping past the meat of all the responses directed at you and only answering irrelevant nitpicky points. It makes you seem as if you're dishonesty avoiding those points.

 

[drkitten]

I think you mean a narrow window between the therapeutic and toxic doses.

You are of course correct. Any passing mod that wants to fix that, be my guest.

 

[Hindmost]

I have no idea why someone would take untested stuff with unknown side effects. Any herbal medicine that has any claim of efficacy is essentially a drug--but it is generally an untested and unrefined drug. Selling snake oil has been profitable for too long and it appears it will continue.

glenn

http://whatstheharm.net/herbalremedies.html

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=herbal_medicine.php

 

[WitchyWoman]

So you HAVE NO point? That clears things up.

I can see where you would get that. Considering you haven't got one CLAIM right. Claiming I said an array of things that were never said at all. I'd say go back and read the posts but you have an obviously problem with comprehension and make up posts in your mind.

 

[paximperium]

I can see where you would get that. Considering you haven't got one CLAIM right. Claiming I said an array of things that were never said at all. I'd say go back and read the posts but you have an obviously problem with comprehension and make up posts in your mind.

I've read the thread. You have no point.

 

[Estellea]

I can see where you would get that. Considering you haven't got one CLAIM right. Claiming I said an array of things that were never said at all. I'd say go back and read the posts but you have an obviously problem with comprehension and make up posts in your mind.

It may serve to further, or in your case, define your claim if you would like to post some literature citations that naturopathy is safe and effective.

 

[drkitten]

That is a blantant lie. If we follow your line of thinking then Doctors have no idea what they are doing until after the fact as well. Qualifications can be checked. If they are licensed, just like any MD.

Who licenses herbalists? Who sets the standards for licensure? Who monitors continuing compliance with licensure requirements?

... and what happens if an herbalist wants to practice but doesn't have a license?




But it's more than that. Doctors know more about what they're doing regarding drugs and prescriptions simply because they're dealing with standardized doses; they know exactly what goes into a 250mg aspirin tablet or 500mg penicillin tab. And there are shelves of studies detailing exactly what the effects are of the various drugs at various dosage levels, and establishing a relatively straightforward idea of "best practice."

How many leaves of foxglove does it take to get 100mg of digitoxin -- bearing in mind that if you're off by 5%, you might kill the patient?

 

[drkitten]

I have no idea why someone would take untested stuff with unknown side effects.

Because a good salesman told them to.

Doctors, by and large, are lousy salesmen. One reason for that is that they're way too busy. They're victims of their own success in that regard; back in the 1890s, being a doctor was a fiercely competitive profession and the most important characteristic any doctor could have was his bedside manner and ability to attract and cultivate patients.

Mainly because the doctors, by and large, couldn't do anything else for them. Oh, you caught the clap? Sucks to be you. Your children have diptheria? Sucks to be them. Even the best doctor couldn't do anything, so they learned how to say "sucks to be you" is a very warm, polite, and caring way.

And most people avoided doctors for that reason. They were typically nice, but ineffective and expensive.

Today, the doctors can and do something else. So everyone goes to them. The doctors become so busy doing effective stuff that they can't even see all of the patients they want. So if what you want is an old-style doctor who will tell you "it sucks to be you" in a warm, polite, and caring fashion, go to a naturopath.

Nice, ineffective, and expensive.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

No one has lied to me. I certainly would not take such products without first going to a qualified herbalist. Just like I would never take a synthetic drug without consulting a Doctor.

Sorry to burst your bubble, the synthetic form of aspirin can do the same.

Actually, aspirin doesn't at the dose that it works at, unlike the willow bark.

A herbalist has NO clue what is in their junk, because the junk won't provide what is actually in them in any way. Unlike regulated and tested things sold by pharmacists or OTC.

 

[TheDaver]

I'm curious. First you are saying Natural health is junk medicine and doesn't work and then you admit that pharma follows their lead and markets their therapies. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

You’re kidding, right?

Watch me.

Imagine only 5% of ‘natural remedies’ actually work (just bear with me). Now imagine scientists come along and determine which 5% that is, and make drugs from them. You now have scientific medicine that works 100% of the time even though it’s based off of natural medicine that works only 5% of the time.

Indeed it was, although aspirin does not allow the patient the full experience of natural healthy side-effects

This comment insinuates that it does not have side effects. As I suspected, you've turned tail.

It does nothing of the sort. It’s perfectly to the point: Pharmaceuticals have less side effects than their natural counterparts. Less. Not none at all.

I believe in having the balls to come right out and say what I mean and believe.

So do most of us here, but we also have the brains to rely more on knowledge than belief.